The main takeaway from the conference - two thirds of fossil fuel reserves represented on world capital stock exchanges have to stay in the ground to stay within the 2C temp rise goal. The valuation of the rest is a carbon bubble.
My note - I suppose it could be that the carbon returns to the ground instead of the fossil fuel stays, although CCS hasn't done well.

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn: we're the first generation to experience climate change, and the last to be able to stop it.
My note - a bit of an overstatement and understatement - we can't stop it, and even a business as usual scenario for X years in the future would be disastrous but not a reason to do nothing starting X years in the future.

A contract-and-grow strategy works for fossil fuel companies - e.g., an oil company that stops throwing away profits on finding new fossil reserves and increases dividends instead will be worth more and serve its owners better than a typical oil company that spends money finding reserves it will never burn.

Lots of discussion on fiduciary duty, something used as an excuse to not divest. Bob Massie calls it a Harry Potter spell - "Fiduciarydutyparalyis!" Given the risks from companies that say they don't care about the future, the fiduciary duty could actually support divestment - what does that say about the quality of the management?

One speaker presented two portfolios, one with fossil fuel companies and one without. The one without had a larger carbon footprint. Climate divestment can get tricky.
My note - I expect that most of the time, this would not be the usual outcome. Perfect v good issue.

Talking to financial people, it sounds like the recognition of financial exposure that you see in the insurance sector is starting to happen in the financial sector.

A number of professionals showed backcast simulations of divested portfolios v. typical portfolios. Overall it seemed to not diverge all that much.

One person asked a question I had - would recognizing the carbon bubble create a race by companies to get the fuel burnt first, before we hit the ceiling? Response said no, projects are currently being cancelled. YMMV.

Investor engagement/shareholder activism - speakers acknowledged this can be a viable alternative in some circumstances, but argued that if a problem with a business is its core business strategy, then shareholder activism won't work. One speaker made a slightly contrary argument - they're going to engage directly with fossil fuel companies to get them to drop the $100b most expensive new fossil fuel projects in planning stages, setting the stage for shareholder lawsuits if they don't drop them and then the projects crash and burn metaphorically.

Someone raised the slippery slope issue that climate divestment is only one issue and that it opens the door to still other ways to reduce the investment universe. I can understand the reasoning - I think a reasonable response might be that you can consider multiple causes, up to whatever line you choose to draw on restricting your investment universe. Then cage match the causes against each other. The speaker said you also have to look at the investor's mission and the cost of a screen - e.g., divesting from Russia-investing companies would be much more difficult than divesting from top 200 fossil fuels.

On a personal note, I ran into a guy who I used to work with on Burma human-rights issues 18 years ago, and saw him today for the first time since then. Small world.

if Brian learned his waiter was a Republican, even after outstanding service, Brian would not leave him a tip. Brian is also a mind reader and can discern the internal thoughts and intentions of anyone he disagrees with.

Generally I've not engaged #1 and just hope the vented anger provides some benefit. In case it's any use though, I have Republican and conservative family members who are wonderful people that I would not match myself up against on a personal morality/niceness basis. I think personal behavior and politics have only a slight overlap.

Thanks for the link, Hank. I've been looking for biochar applications outside of Third World situations, and it seems like there are some real possibilities.

Folks who are very "nice" and "moral" (at least superficially*) in their everyday lives will vote for and support (or simply remain silent about) immoral and even illegal policies so long as they are carried out by their own party's guy in the White House (Republican or Democrat)

..but when the other party's guy does the very same things, it's a very different story.

*Some would argue that true morality involves a willingness to criticize one's own "affiliates" (party, family, church, etc) when they do things that violate one's professed morality.

Eli has decided enough is enough. Given the recent news about Fox Ratfucking, bunnies must seriously question whether a political opponent sent #1 over here, and frankly, the littlest one is getting tiring. Most of that stuff has been moved over to the Rabett Hole if anybunny cares, and new blather will be terminated with extreme whatever.

Brian is fortunate in his enemies--they are inarticulate and dim of wit. And they are such reprehensible little turds that they generate sympathy for the targets of their vituperation just by their very nastiness.

Some, not 1 to be sure, might think your continual usage of offensive assaults on other posters may garner some attention from the resident king bunny. Fortunately (for you) this is a team only site so any fears you may have of comment movement/deletion should dissipate faster than Arctic ice melt.

Brian,Thanks for your work. We need people who are willing to be serious politicians, thinking about policy and how to implement it. Thinking about how to work with people and the system to make our society better.

Similarly, one could say that One(1), by choosing a pseudonym that is a pictographic representation of male genitalia, has unthinkingly contributed evidence to the well founded proposition that One(1) is a prick.

For someone who professes a sense of humor One(1) doesn't seem to do irony very well.

At last night's Board meeting, I complimented a San Jose City Councilmember for working extensively with us to solve a mercury contamination problem/threat to endangered steelhead in one of our watersheds. The previous night at a public meeting I corrected an incorrect criticism against that councilmember which may have been related to the partisan race he had been in last year. Of course, this councilmember is a Republican.

Whether it's climate or anything else, the issue is working together with people as long as you have sufficient basis for agreement.

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.